Some Investors May Be Skeptical of Solar—But Not For Long
I had a meeting in New York City last year with a fellow alumnus of Trinity College (pictured). The guy had just sold his real estate development company for a mere $5.4 billion (with a “b”), so I thought that was worth a walk crosstown from my previous appointment to spend a few minutes with him. Of course, I hoped to present a few of my clean energy investment opportunities, and I did just that, but I noticed visibly skeptical body-language coming from my friend.
When I inquired about this, he explained, “Anyone who invested in solar over the past few years got carried out on a stretcher.” Of course, he had a point here, but I urged him to look at the fundamentals over the medium-term, as described in this article from Bloomberg.
There are 6.5 million people worldwide who are gainfully employed in the solar industry, and that number will only grow.
The price of solar has fallen 62% since 2009, a trend that can only continue. More to the point, countries all around the globe are finding that energy from solar will very soon cost less than energy from coal—at which point there will be exactly zero interest in this form of fossil fuels, by far the dirtiest. According to this article from Bloomberg, there are already many places on Earth generating solar electricity at $0.03/kWh, which is the lowest cost of any form of energy on the planet.
It will be very interesting to see what happens as the plummeting cost of solar obsoletes fossil fuels. The best part is that no amount of stupidity, corruption, or smoke-and-mirrors economics will prevent this from happening. It’s the same story I’ve been telling for the past couple of years, since the publication of my most recent book (Bullish on Renewable Energy), i.e., the migration to renewables will happen whether or not we care a whit about the environment; it will be driven by the forces of pure market economics.
I hope you’ll check out the report linked above and see if you don’t come to that exact conclusion.
This very much reminds me of the acetylene disaster.
Before electric lights and mantles for gas lights were available, it was discovered that acetylene lighting was far superior to anything else. Because of that, huge amounts of money were invested in acetylene plants. However, just before the acetylene plants came on line, the mantle for gas lights was invented thereby causing the demand for acetylene to drop sharply. The result was that people who invested in acetylene lost everything they had invested. Probably that could not have been anticipated. Of course both gas lighting technologies were soon replaced by electric lighting.
Before wind and solar power can can produce meet practically all power requirements, it will be necessary to have an energy storage technology that is practical and economical on an extremely large scale. That does not currently exist and it may well be that it will never exist. Unless it comes into existence, wind and solar power will turn out to be unable to provide for our power requirements. Meanwhile and belatedly, considerable funds are being invested into various nuclear reactor technologies. That too is high risk, but it looks as though at least a couple of the nuclear technologies being researched will be able to eliminate all the current objections to nuclear power. If so, investments into wind and solar power will be a disaster.
Wind and solar skeptics skepticism is well founded because it recognizes that the future of wind and solar power depends on technologies which currently do not exist.
@ Craig. Happy 2017
Hard to know where to start with your posting Craig.
Even the heading “Some Investors May Be Skeptical of Solar – But Not For Long” is bewildering.
You consistently denounce and deride those technical commentators of the world who have the temerity to put forward any critical analysis and science based commentary about the inadequacy of Solar PV becoming a major player as an energy source, suitable for replacing fossil fuel generation to permanently mitigate global greenhouse gas emissions, as misinformed loonies and heretics.
Now you are taking on the investment world, or at least, some investors.
Well at your meeting in New York, you had a face to face with one potential investor, to presumably bring his thinking into line with yours on the subject. Is he one of those that you are referring to as a “Skeptical of Solar – But Not For Long”?
To paraphrase a quote from that meeting; you said: “When I inquired about this, he explained, “Anyone who invested in solar over the past few years got carried out on a stretcher.” Of course, he had a point here…”
At this point I am totally bewildered by your report Craig, because you agreed up front with his assessment as to disastrous Solar PV investment outcomes everybody knows about over these past few years, but still persist with your upbeat arguments. This is akin to snake oil peddling.
The key point that your investor colleague knows full well and you appear not to have much idea about is encapsulated in your second last paragraph Craig.
Quote: “the migration to renewables will happen whether or not we care a whit about the environment; it will be driven by the forces of pure market economics”.
Your New York investor colleague knows full well that the global renewable energy technologies sector, was not founded on; does not currently; and will not possibly be able to in the future, operate through the forces of pure market economics, alone.
Modern era energy sector investment must be predicated on enduring tangible upside trend lines, and Solar PV simply does not possess these attributes. And that is why you’re not so persuasive arguments to convert his views as a potential investor fell on deaf ears.
He gets it – and you don’t.
I am detecting Craig, that you may be so entrenched in your own corporate ambitions that you are incapable of bringing any genuine objectivity or critical analysis to the global energy debate going forward whatsoever.
Lastly, yes there are 6.5 million people worldwide who are gainfully employed in the solar industry, and I am one of them, but there are also over 7 million baristas supporting a growing coffee sector.
Now there is a sector with strong growth fundamentals!
Lawrence Coomber
Craig, this article from a year ago tends to agree with you: http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/national-bank-abu-dhabi-even-10-barrel-oil-couldnt-match-solar-cost.html But here is an article from last April http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11415510/solar-power-costs-innovation that cautions that we have to achieve solar at $.25 / watt by 2050 which seems unlikely. And along comes Chile in August bid at $ 29.10 per MWHR half the price of the previous solar record and half the price of the coal bid. http://inhabitat.com/chiles-solar-price-hits-record-global-low-at-half-the-price-of-coal/ I see no reason to doubt your assessment.
Frank, I admire your optimism for nuclear, but until nuclear energy can be made solid state (nuclear batteries?) I don’t see how it can compete with the ever reducing price of solar. It also seems as if there are no end to the companies who are investing into battery storage: https://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/15/27-battery-storage-companies-watch/
Hi Craig,
Nice to have an old classmate with $5.1 billion. (most of mine seem desperate for a ‘loan’ to buy the next round of drinks :).
For those of us not familiar with “Trinity College” , are you referring to the University in Connecticut or the School in NYC ?
I admire your passion and enthusiasm for Solar generation. In the right application this industry has a very significant future, especially for specialized locations and applications. Within this context, the industry will improve and prosper.
However, no matter how you fudge and distort the figures, as a generator of power for industrial societies, it’s simply an inappropriate, inadequate technology, and a disaster for investors unless provided with generous government guarantees.
Now here’s what puzzles me. Some months ago a very sensible and sincere young man wrote seeking interest in an excellent application for Solar Power to provide California with fresh water. I thought the idea was great ! (I’m already backing four similar projects).
Why didn’t you put this very sound proposal to your potential investor ?
Yes, it’s Trinity College in Hartford, CT.
If you can send me a link to the developers of that desal project, I’ll request and read their business plan.
Thanks,
Craig
Hi Craig,
I’m afraid I don’t have a link. He was a commentator to one of your posts so I assumed you would have read his comment and recorded his interest.
All I remember is he came from California,
By coincidence, I attended Trinity College, Melbourne University!
OK, I’ll try to find that.
Yes, that’s quite a coincidence.
Marcopolo,
The use of solar power for seawater desalination may be practical because the desalinated sea water can be stored until needed thereby helping to deal with the intermittent nature of solar power. However, it is not that simple.
If the capacity factor of solar power is perhaps 20%, that means that the desalination plant would have to have FIVE TIMES the capacity which would be required if the plant had full power available 100% of the time. Obviously that would increase investment costs. Thus, the practicality of solar power for seawater desalination is questionable. It depends on costs.
Hi Frank,
Thank you for your reply.
You are correct as a general principle, however there are numerous applications where solar powered desalinated water is more cost effective than conventional power.
It’s huge planet with literally millions of opportunities for alternate energy to prove useful for specialized applications.
The real problem for alternate energy, isn’t lack of efficiency, but lack of ability to deliver energy “on demand”.
But for applications where demand can be matched to generating capacity, solar generation is economically unbeatable especially when there’s no distribution costs and generous government incentives.
Two of our projects are in developing nations, but underwritten by European decolonization conscience funding. Due to the financing arrangements and heavy subsidies, the projects make excellent investments and practical benefit to the local communities.
The other two will prove profitable, since by taking advantage of existing disused assets and infrastructure, they start with an economic advantage.
I don’t disagree with your caution regarding the cost’s. Investment of this nature requires careful analysis and rigorous due diligence, but great opportunities exist for specialist applications.
Dear Frank your concept of using solar for desalination is a good matchup.
The capacity factors now for higher performing fixed systems is now getting to the mid 20’s % level. Panel and power optimizer electronics increasing yield.
Single tracking is now delivering 36 % capacity factor so the production yields getting much better. cost is $ 1.75 watt turnkey installed All In as they say.
this is cheap power to capture clean water. Also one can do some serious waste brine treatment and recover several residuals that create revenue streams besides the water for the plant.
Some of the residuals are being re sold into the oil / gas industry for Hydro fracking use.
Part of that circular economy in Action .
Good improvements for society.
Marcopolo and Silent,
I’m not saying that solar power would not be reasonable for sea water desalination. However, I do think that the costs would have to be very carefully evaluated.
Another place where solar power could possibly be justified is in reducing aluminum from its ore. That requires huge amounts of electricity. If the electrolysis process could easily be stopped and started, that might be a good application for solar power. But there again, it would increase the investment required to reduce aluminum so the costs would have to be carefully evaluated.
Also, alternative methods should be explored to reduce iron from its iron oxide ore. Currently it is reduced from the ore with carbon resulting in huge amounts of CO2 emissions. If an electrolysis process could be found to reduce ore and it is practical, that could also be an application for solar power.
We do need continuous and reliable sources of power, but there are applications where intermittent power could possibly be acceptable depending on both the cost of solar power and the additional investment cost required to deal with the fact that solar power is intermittent.
The fact that solar power is intermittent means that there are only a few situations where it is an acceptable source of power.
Greetings and Good New Years Lawrence ,
while it may be a new Year I see a continuance of last years and prior years skepticism on your part in Craig’s Enthusiasm and Vision going forward for Global Energy Trends and development.
Craig and many others including myself see a good future for both wind , solar. both are getting stronger.
Your statement that solar and you are in it ( which I commend and appreciate you for) may be reaching its limits technically is pre mature and disregards that as fossil fuels increase in price. Specifically Natural gas in certain regions, then 18 and 20 hour storage capable high powered solar towers become economically viable. Their price has dropped into the LCOE of around 13 cents per Kwhr American price. This will be off the shelf technology as there are plants now in So Africa and North Africa plus the early generation and more costly California plants 3. LCOE around $ .19 cents + or – So we are reaching for the Moon shot here, its here Now.
Some Moon shot is the emerging Peroskovite design that is advancing in Academia testing labs.
we have commerical pv mono getting derate levels of .92 over its lifetime which means there is only 8 % energy yield degradation over its 30 year life time. ( note: 10 years ago the industry standard was .77 % so losses over lifetime were significant) the technology improvement is note worthy to the Pro Forma $$$ as they say. In the money as us Power Industry veterans tend to say.
These are example’s of both internal / external conditions becoming drivers for more solar expansion. In the case of the CPS its into baseload firm dispatchable power.! Molten Salts or similar material ( low cost by the way ) serve as the battery.
Frank batteries can come in different formats.
Granted there may be a gap for the Mid nite to 6 am time frame. but in some locations wind resources can close the gap and common sense knows that late nite baseload needs are way down for many other external reasons.
The traditional PV while improving significantly may need some GAP support. More needs to be done.
Of course in the Sweat shop SE Asia and China man land, India big industrial centers of production there may be more need for late night power.
So other technologies perhaps will be needed to fill the gap or lead the charge to be primary power. That could be SMR’s , Hydro and regrettably the last vestiges of dirty coal power that may hang on but as the coal market shrinks prices will rise as the economies of scale in mining and supply chain contract and drive up unit costs . So that external needs to be factored into the Risk Assessment process as well.
Wind at 20 megs a pole and with molten tank storage are right around the corner just need the price point of competing fuels to make it pay off in shorter time and the money will flow .
Statoil of Norway is one of the leading bidders for off shore leases on the US East coast. so Craig you can tell the investor that a successful Oil Co is diversifying into American wind power. So they see reduced risk.
perhaps Mate Marco who is in London should catch a Ferry and go visit the Norwegians and provide advice and counsel into the risks of wind as he tends to dismiss this lowest cost of energy in his Posts. He sees risk. He may know things that Statoil needs to know.
So when these things including the investor Craig was talking with make comments about – well many investors in solar got hurt and things could change – sure there is some good thought there. some large solar co are losing money I find that to a degree alarming but Jeff Bezos of Amazon has lost money for 8 years or so. they finally turned the corner over a year or so ago. Just bought 20 large planes so they weathered the risk.
But when one examines the entire Energy marketplace landscape one can see massive failure and billions of lost investment and cancelled projects covering the entire gamut of technology. Energy is a high risk game to a degree no matter what form it is.
EG:
150 year old Oil industry with multi billion dollar E & P players have cancelled projects after $ 15 to $ 25 Billion in expenditures. No Oil recovered etc.
Countless other citations could be provided but the point is clear there is risk – so perhaps the decision comes down which has the lowest External risk. Well we know the sun is going to shine and the wind blow so the external is lower. if there is no sun well hope to meet everyone in Heaven cause its game over down here.
There would have to be a really major breakthrough in the reduction of capital costs ( internal risk) and a equally lower risk of external risk ( market need) of lets say large AP 1000 nukes or successful emergence of SMR’s of the 3 competing forms to constitute a strong external risk to continued development and major expansion of solar and wind.
I say given the current state of things that the risk of batteries not attaining the needed level of performance needed may be a higher external risk to solar and wind. And this threat is more limited to the industrial / commercial and upper end residential sector of solar.
Not applicable to:
Utility scale CPS w storage and single tracking units ( US $ 1,200 per KW turnkey) are off to the races now. Those Ships are SAILING!
Frank s concerns about batteries is more valid and carries more weight as it apply s to the 3 markets I indicated. But the external risk is increased energy efficiency in those sectors so load is dropping so power need GAP is shrinking. So risk of energy shortfall is going down. Perhaps the developing nations have different needs but in the US energy usage per sq ft. trending Down.
Yes there is skepticism and rightly so as the energy game no matter what sector one may be in or be a favorite of has large Internal / External risks. Some of the risks are in specific technology and their respective limits or it includes a combination of the externals impacts.
Called Unknowns???
Given the reduced capital cost reductions for both solar and wind – it is a accurate statement to see that Risk is lower in that key driver variable. Lower capital cost and low O & M life cycle costs.
Lawrence the last time I shared some technically and factually accurate data that is shared on the world Stage with you and who ever else was following . You pushed back rather sarcastically and we will just leave it at that. No need to get hung up on Idealogy theatrics.
For the record in this posting and many others I have made :
I have stated clearly and specifically that your favorite technologies and those of your Aussie sidekick Mate Marco should be given their due consideration to be part of the non carbon generating mix of technologies. Yes your beloved Nuclear Genie.
But they have their risks and here is some more factual examples of their High Internal Risks. Craig share this with your Investment colleague and guide him to take this continued track record of Failure into account as he evaluates so called advanced nuclear technologies. Compare this $$$risk with the lower risk of maturing solar and wind and his position may become more favorable to what you were presenting.
Lawrence as usual lays out his critique of your position and questions if you are only promoting technology that may fall short ???
The complete answer for all of us is actually unknown but its easy to see lower risk in what you are proposing.
Here is that High Risk and continued record of failure for certain so called Advanced Technologies Lawrence.
Dec 2016
TOKYO (AP) — Japan formally approved a plan Wednesday to scrap an experimental fast-breeder nuclear reactor that drained government finances for decades without living up to hopes it would be a savior for the resource-poor country’s energy needs.
Government ministers decided to decommission the trouble-plagued “Monju” reactor. It has cost Japan about 1 trillion yen ($9 billion) while operating only 250 days since it started up 22 years ago.
The so-called “dream reactor” was designed to burn a plutonium-uranium mix, while potentially producing more plutonium in the process that could be converted into more nuclear fuel.
The reactor suffered a leakage of sodium, used as coolant, in 1995, months after it went online, a major accident that caused its initial years long suspension before more recent safety problems.
It was estimated that Monju would have required costly upgrades to meet new safety standards introduced after meltdowns at a nuclear plant in Fukushima that was flooded by a tsunami in 2011, with at least 540 billion yen ($4.6 billion) and eight more years of work estimated to restart Monju, officials said, citing their latest estimates.
“We have decided to decommission Monju because restarting it would require significant time and cost,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said from Fukui, home to Monju in western Japan. Local officials oppose losing Monju, which rakes in ___subsidies___ and provides jobs.
Officials, however, said Japan’s spent fuel recycling plan would not change even without Monju. Opponents say Japan should give up the program and shift to direct burial of spent fuel as waste, but officials are seeking another fast reactor to replace Monju, although details are still extremely sketchy.
So there you go $$$$ Risk after 22 years of failure. back to zero starting point and so it goes.
This week NY announced that Indian Point 2 nukes right outside of NY city will be shut down in 4 years or less due to mounting operational and safety issues. Not making their lifecycle – sothat is Internal risk.
We also know that it is going to take another $12 billion or so to keep 6 other so called mature nuclear genies operating in 3 states in the US. External and Internal risks working here double whammy!
And now Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts is being discussed as early retirement due to leaking issues by its owner Entergy.
So yes sir Energy cowboys in 2 Green energy land There is inherent risk in the energy game. When your mature technologies still hold these high level of risks – common wisdom says its High time to get moving with new Toys. Turns out some of these new toys while not wonder wands or total complete solutions in them selves they definitely are contributing to the new Mix at Lower Risk.
spoken another way it is a Pearl of Wisdom that the first thing one should do when they find themselves Digging in a Ditch is to Stop Digging!
Now Lawrence if your risk level is acceptable and you want to actually demonstrate the benefits of Advanced nuclear – you can get a deal on a never completed or opened TVA nuke plant called Bellafonte in Ala. the US government only spent close to $ 7.5 billion on it over the past 30 years. They are taking bids from the private sector and the word is out that one can buy it for less than $ 250 million maybe less.
the external risk is low as the South is phasing out coal power so they need more base load etc , solar resource there not as efficient. So a power market exists.
Trust this sheds greater light like the SUN does on this Issue of Risk!!!
Lawrence if you get to go sailing with Mate Marco and survey the White Barrier Reef locations you both have a wonderful time and be safe. Since Marco is a seasoned Master of the Seas your Risk levels are well within acceptable limits. As my sun is setting I see None.
Enjoy!!!! !
Carry On
Silent,
You wrote, “Specifically Natural gas in certain regions, then 18 and 20 hour storage capable high powered solar towers become economically viable.”
If, instead of 18 and 20 hour storage it were 18 and 20 WEEKS, then it might work. But in fact we eventually will need to get practically 100% of our power from non-CO2 emitting sources. Global demand for power will greatly increase. According to some estimates (of course we cannot know exactly), it will increase by about FOUR TIMES by the year 2100.
As global warming increases, positive feedback effects will increase warming by considerably more (we don’t know exactly by how much) than would otherwise be the case. CO2 and CH4 stored in various manners will be released thereby contributing to warming. Shrinking glaciers and ice caps will reduce the amount of heat reflected back into space thereby increasing global warming even more. Thus, reducing CO2 emissions by a moderate amount will be insufficient.
We know that burning natural gas (methane) emits about half as much CO2 as burning coal and oil, but that too must be almost eliminated.
Wind and solar systems are intermittent. A mere 20 hours of storage is insufficient by an order of magnitude. Concentrated solar systems are especially sensitive to clouds since they require direct sunlight to operate. Here in Albuquerque NM, which advertises its large number of sunny days, has been cloudy for much of the last two weeks, a situation would greatly reduce the amount of useful solar energy received. Twenty hours of storage would not be sufficient to compensate for that.
I am unaware of any adequate quantitative studies which have been done to evaluate the practically of solar and wind systems as an adequate source of reliable continuous power. Weather maps have been used in an attempt to do so, but that is not a method which I would accept as reliable. Probably the only way to predict the reliability of wind and solar systems, and to determine how much storage would be required, would be to instal solar and wind sensors at many of the locations where it would be practical to instal wind and solar systems. Then, over a period of years, the data would be analyzed and evaluated. The results would indicate by how much wind and solar systems would have to be overbuilt and how much storage would be required to provide adequate and reliable power. Of course that would be very expensive, but it would cost far less than building actual wind and solar systems THEN finding out that they are incapable of providing adequate power.
We are being urged to transition to a power system with no proof that it is practical. I am aware that Deutschland is getting about 40% of its power from renewables, but the difference between 40% and perhaps 95% is exceedingly great. The fact that Deutschland sometimes gets more than 100% of the power it needs for a few hours proves nothing.
Except for areas with plenty of hydro power available, it looks as though nuclear power is absolutely essential. And yes, I am aware of the failure of a Na cooled nuclear pilot plant in Japan and the failure of a similar plant in France. Perhaps Na cooling is not practical, but it is too soon to reach that conclusion. It took some time and experience to make pressurized water cooled reactors practical so we should not be surprised that two or more Na cooled nuclear reactors have failed. Graphite moderated gas cooled reactors are being operated in the UK; they use NATURAL uranium for fuel which is a big advantage. Work is being done to develop molten salt cooled reactors, including the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, an experimental one of which was successfully tested in the 1960. Actually, there are many possible types of reactors.
It seems practically inevitable that alternative types of reactors will be developed which will not have the problems associated with our pressurized water reactors. But even if they are not, our pressurized water reactors are capable of doing the job. France currently gets about 75% of its power from nuclear reactors which is a higher percentage of its power than any country gets from wind and solar systems.
There are niche situations in which wind and solar power are appropriate, but they are incapable of providing for the power requirements of most prosperous countries without energy storage systems which may never be capable of making wind and solar systems practical.
Frank,
In reality Germany doesn’t get 40% of it’s power from “renewable” sources.
The percentage is much lower but very difficult to assess due to the impenetrable labyrinth of government regulations and reporting distortions.
In the meantime, despite heavy and often hidden subsidies provided the cost of German power has increased dramatically over the past decade. The true cost of power generation to the economy has escalated along with German dependence on imported natural gas from Russia.
Marcopolo,
Germany also imports power from France.
I’ve suspected for some time that determining the true cost of power in Germany would be difficult which is why I have never quoted figures for it. I’m sure that that is also true another countries as well.
It appears that most Germans do support German energy policies. However, that does not mean that the policies are reasonable. I’m not sure that Frau Merkel agrees with the policies but for political reasons she has supported them.
@Silent Running
I wish you and yours a very healthy and prosperous 2017 old mate and good to see you back for another round.
I enjoyed your first posting for the year, and I read every word of it. This sentence in particular leapt of the page: “Craig and many others including myself see a good future for both wind, solar. Both are getting stronger.”
Marcopolo, Frank Eggers and I often make very similar comments in support of RE and (Solar PV in particular).
Please don’t disregard this fact SR or we will be batting it back and forth all year.
In fact let me start 2017 as I have started the last 12 years in the renewable energy industry as a design manufacturer by declaring emphatically and without reservation:
“Solar PV technology alone was responsible for the inception of my RE Solutions design and manufacturing company, and continues today as the most important resource/tool available to our integrated systems innovation, and business growth and prosperity.”
We love Solar PV; and so do our customers. It provides opportunities for some ordinary people where hitherto they were energy deprived, and will continue to do so where the “right set of circumstances prevail”.
And this is the key point SR. We have a saying in Australia that can very elegantly be plugged into the global RE debate: “Horses for courses”.
Having said all that warm and fuzzy stuff; Solar PV and Wind technologies have no meaningful future whatsoever regarding “Climate change”. These technologies have zero (0) consideration value as we go forward devising new generation science that will mitigate greenhouse gasses permanently and deliver critically needed “big energy” to the world forever.
Solar PV in its current format wasn’t designed to be an enduring, massive density, safe, clean, easily deployable, and low cost energy source that would provide for a “big energy” future for all people, all nations, and new age industries everywhere, forever! Without noxious emissions!
So why on earth SR would you suggest, that the world’s best and brightest physicists, scientists, and engineers should (according to you and Craig) all be prepared to turn up to work each day at their respective global research laboratories, and tinker around with Solar PV cells, and try to make them fit into the worlds future at the macro energy generation level, and at the same time, permanently reverse the greenhouse gasses epidemic we are facing due mainly to fossil fuel generation and fuel oil internal combustion engine use.
You must be pulling my leg SR, or to coin another Australian saying: “Dreaming”!
SR I value your observations; so can I invite you to make a reflective comment on these two questions below that I often muse over:
Q1. Is the timing about right, for global corporations and our best and brightest physicists scientists and engineers, to seize the moment and mobilise to refine the sciences that focus on replacing fossil fuel energy generation technology with “new age enduring generation technology” that will deliver abundant, clean, safe, and low cost energy for network distribution for the use of all people and industries, including developing nations and energy deprived regions, and at the same time eliminate global energy generation greenhouse gas emissions to insignificant levels permanently?
Q2. If an answer to 1 above has any affirmative connotations, then what might be some of the technical attributes of the “new age enduring generation technology” the “new age” solutions researchers come up with?
LOL
Lawrence Coomber
@ Lawrence
Your New Years reply was more thoughtful and very glad to learn of your renewed interest in promoting and developing R e incl solar etc.
As I said in my Post all the technologies seem to have some limits and right now there are no 100 % Solutions.
I also provided excellent factual from your part of the world Another example of Big Failure within the sacred cow or pork belly of the Nuclear Genie the Japan closure after 22 years of so called serious deep research and all paid by the people of Japan with not very many Kwhrs to show for it. 250 days over a 22 year life span ? Talk about Failure and the need to get into some sort of laboratory andwork on better designs. etc.
Your questions I answer yes to 1 but as for Quest 2 since I am not a Physicist I dont know specifically what new form they should pursue.
I do believe the 3 competing SMR s technologies have the most promise in the near term to help close the GAPS or Fill the GAPs that wind, solar , hydro, Gas turbines need help with.
I provided a up to date report on the failure of 7 other nuclear genies so this concentrated power source seems to have many lingering issues that prove both costly and un reliable over time but I admit they are long ago yesterdays designs that are now obsolete and not the solution envisioned when they were built and subsidized etc.so many moons ago !
I even offered you a potential opportunity for large concentrated power sources and options on a never opened Nuke the Bellafonte plant in Ala. You did not mention that so perhaps you are not interested in trying to revive that site. I dont blame you I
would never go for it either. Just trying to be helpful as you look for this Big powerful energy solution that you talk about.
So since Don’t have any unique new ideas for the think tank Physicists here is where real doable progress is being made.
This is another reason why Craig , myself and many many others are more Bullish on solar given all the good and despite some of its short comings .
here is a snap shot of the TEXAS solar Utility Power market Developments a NC company has a huge pipeline of large soalr projects in their pipeline. We got plenty of gas for night time and for load firming etc.
Of important note and for all you other Skeptics out there on solar look at what the Investor class says about the attractiveness of solar as Investment opportunity.
Jan – edition of Power Engineering – the prime utility and Industry publications
this does not come from any ol greenie weenie coffee late sipping fuzzy wuzzy types either Lawrence. The kind that are all talk and emotion but No Decisive Action …etc. This is the Big leagues the real action in the Deregulated energy supply only market that most of TEXAS has in place now. solar growing enormously.
Innovative Solar Systems, an Asheville, NC based Solar Farm Development company is once again dominating the solar power energy market by having the largest pipeline of projects in development in the Texas market. ISS company representatives report that ISS has over 50 Utility Scale projects in development that range size from 35MW to over 200MW. The company’s entire Texas pipeline totals several GW’s and all of the projects will be ready for construction soon. Texas users of power are lining up for the ISS Standard PPA offering which is somewhere between avoided cost and retail power prices states ISS’s CEO. Large buyers of Renewable Energy want these large blocks of power from Innovative Solar Systems for many reasons and power price is no longer many companies primary concern.
ISS is offering PPA contracts in Texas that range in contract length from 10 to 25 years. ISS has approximately 8Million MW/hours of power that the company is entering into long term contracts with Texas off Takers on at this time. Many of the Texas projects will be sold to third party entities after the projects come online due to the magnitude and size of these assets and their associated IRR’s. Innovative Solar Systems is currently in negotiations on the Texas pipeline with several Oil and Gas companies, Family Offices as well as groups of Foreign Pension Funds and IPP’s. Solar Farm assets have quickly become some of the most sought after investments in the market due to their large returns and lengths of those returns. Where else can an investor get over 10% yearly solid returns for forty (40) years? Solar Farms have become the new gold standard for investors willing to invest anywhere from $100MM to well over $10 Billion for safer, low risk, large and steady IRR’s
So Lawrence and Marco things may be different in your side of the Universe but in Texas solar is shining Bright , Legions of projects and Investors lining up to dominate the market.
Craig this is good news given some of the Dark clouds hanging and the sounds of flocks of Black swans circling over the United States.
Investment groups like the Rate of return and cash flows over 25 to 30 plus or more years.
So risk is not great at all & Rate of Return is above market average etc.
Lawrence perhaps the scientific fusion reactor work being done by the Multi national Consortium in France may make better progress yet. They have spent billions and are some years off schedule Maybe that is where the answer to Quest 2 lies??? not sure.
For now the Texas solar market for utility scale solar seems like where the good Action is.
take care
Silent,
My position is still that there has not been adequate consideration given to how intermittent sources of power can, without depending on non-intermittent sources of power, deliver adequate and reliable power at all times. As I see it, that has not been adequately addressed.
SR you were on the right track; then you surrendered your objectivity, gave up on yourself, and started rambling about some piles of junk energy generation installations in Japan and Alabama that have absolutely no relevance to the modern world, and certainly no place in any energy science discussion in 2017.
I am not letting you go though without closing out this discussion with one final posting.
SR – I often put similar scenarios about the future and technological change to 12-15 year old students during an ad hoc “new age technologies” lecture series that I started for middle school students 4 years ago.
When it comes to probing them about what the key attributes might be for the next generation of technology used in any category of human endeavour, whether it be energy generation; agricultural science; transportation; health services etc; their general opinions and answers are always the same in principle; concise; simple to understand; and in my opinion about as good an answer that any professional anywhere could put forth.
Student discussion example:-
Question:- Is the timing about right, for global corporations and our best and brightest physicists scientists and engineers, to seize the moment and mobilise to define and refine the sciences that focus on replacing fossil fuel energy generation technology with “new age enduring generation technology” that will deliver abundant, clean, safe, and low cost energy for network distribution for the use of all people and industries, including developing nations and energy deprived regions, and at the same time eliminate global energy generation greenhouse gas emissions to insignificant levels permanently?
Answer:- I don’t know the precise detail of course because I am not a scientist or engineer involved in this field, but I must assume that as energy generation technology changes and advances and for it to be able to merit replacing existing forms of technology, its key attributes must be as a minimum:
1. Be a different type of technology that does it job as designed, and performs much better than the older technology, and;
2. Satisfy all of its new design performance standards much more cost effectively than the older technology.
How come the kids can be so elegant in their conceptual understanding and express themselves like this SR – and you with all your worldly experience can’t even have a go.
Just something to think about SR.
The only commentator on 2greenenergy who seems to have a deep understanding of these concepts is Frank Eggers who has rightly been pushing this “holistic energy industry concept” repeatedly and forcefully all last year, but it all seems to be just a cry in the wilderness and falls on deaf ears at 2greenenergy.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
Like Frank, I’m also convinced of the advantages of building advanced nuclear power plants where appropriate.
I favour the Japanese/Korean model of mini-nuclear plants utilizing thorium as the principal fuel. Mini-plants have the advantage of needing a minimum investment in distribution infrastructure while also avoiding expensive losses.
However, Solar and Wind will remain the most appropriate power generating technologies for specialist applications. Hydro-, Geo-thermal, bio-mass all have a role to play where economic considerations deem these technologies more appropriate.
Coal is developing “clean” or at least “cleaner” technologies to capture carbon emissions as marketable by-products, these technologies can be retro-fitted to some existing plants.
As Frank rightly points out, investment in clean energy can be severely retarded by inappropriate regulation, incentives, subsidies and mandates favoring one technology over another.
Government policies are also influences by political ideology, and lobbying by groups with either partisan self-interest or irrelevant agenda.
I think even Craig, who despite being a Solar and Wind enthusiast, agrees with the need for a combination of technologies.
There is no single “magic bullet” . Investment in energy generation should be based on the most economic technology for reliable generation, while minimizing environmental harm.
@ Lawrence
Hey your sarcasm is not worth much time but here is some more facts.
You said you would Bring it so be it.
When someone presents accurate factual information that includes examples of large scale $$$ and technical failure you get resentful and rush to exaggerations. When it is about your beloved Genie. One of the most subsidized sources of power the world has ever known. Go tell the Japs that their 20 plus year plutonium reactor was junk.
Just like you dissed the International Energy Administration report I shared on global wind market.
Perhaps you suffer from a strong case of Denial or Jealousy for other organizations and technologies successes.
I even shared the name of a Australian PhD who is a co author for the Global Report – who is in your back yard , you could have visited him but no you came back with childish rubbish which illustrates that you have other issues perhaps?
Go tell that to the owners and shareholders for the owners of these middle aged nukes in America that are having economic and technical indigestion ( like serious failures and cant compete – in market place for price of power). go send their rate payers rebate checks for the Billions in over payments they have to spend their money on. Lawrence you have lots to do and some of these issues will detract from your goal to develop the source of power with all the density you think is needed. So maybe you need to pick and choose and I apologize if I gave you too long a list of to do’s but they are all in the Mix.
You may not like them so go ahead and aim at the Messenger. It rolls off. Olive Oil Skin!
In the spirit of Breeder Reactors here are some more….
Go tell all those Investors in Texas who are under writing large solar plants and scheduled to deliver 10 % returns for over 30 years if all works out. Go tell them they are fools !
Go tell ERCOT and the TEXAS PUC who are now counting on solar to provide day time peak power to their Grid , the most energy intensive in the United States with peak load around 74,000 or 77,000 megawatts.
You bring in Frank – he is good man and I enjoy discourse with him he also gives specifics and one can learn from him.
However, he is not current with capacity factor’s and current performance for some things. None of us can keep up with it all for sure.
The plants they are building here get 34 to 36 % capacity factors and that is just fine to compliment the Grid based on the mix of other technologies .
maybe th erolling Stones were right You dont always get what you want but you get what you Need. That is what is Happening in Texas.
The Oil and GAs state and its integrating RE Wind and Solar into its massive Grid pretty seamlessly.
Texas will most likely close a few more coal plants and soon we will only have around 5 or 6 when once we had close to 20 . So the 4 big nukes, the CC gas and gas turbines and 15 GW of wind and planned 20 more plus the planned 15 to 20 GW of solar is the game plan that all the REAL Experts and Practitioners are doing.
BTW its notable they turned down expansion of the dual reactor nukes – we have two separate plants with 2 reactors each. The system Planners made that decision so I guess they are lame too. Please be cool and dont share that. Marco will accuse me of bribing them or something.
Also Texas will get more solar DG and more CHP in certain areas.
See Lawrence that is the real energy test. How to Integrate a mix of technologies leveraging each ones advantages into a synergistic power source. The end result is the power supply the largest Grid in the US needs.
That is what is going on so that’s the answer. Get it Got It Good!
but that concept may be too ….what ever for you to comprehend or accept as your agenda is something else what that is I dont know as you never discuss or present details just continue to ignore some figures and facts dismiss it all as some BS fantasy. .
Liars figure Lawrence figures dont lie! Your the one who is seeking the power density wander wand . I am not a candidate for your school I see a different Path forward that so manyothers are DOING Not complaining or Just Talking doing!
Bella Fonte may not be spiffy but you could get a NRC permit as I believe they kept it active so there is some head start value there.
The South has strong load needs due to hot humid weather and lower solar, wind , geo-thermal resources versus other areas.
But Lawrence from Australia I Was trying to be helpful to you.
Others are too, like the International Fusion Consortium in France where the Best and so called Brightest have been working for how long now ??? and How many billions over budget, but the Mission does justify the means so the funding continues and probably should as the fusion reactor if technically doable etc may be what is needed in the Long term.
Perhaps they will better align with your Power Density goals.
Santa may need to help you with all your to do’s …..
Good wishes
Silent,
I just found this link:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_6_07_b .
It has capacity factor charts. From reading it, it appears that the capacity factor for solar varies considerably month by month. For example, in 2015, PV varied from a high of 31.7% in June to a low of 16.8% in January; the figure for the entire year was 25.8%. Solar thermal varied from a high of 32.3% in August to a low of 5% in January; the figure for the entire year was 22.1%. As a result of viewing the 2015 chart, I question the validity of using only one figure for capacity factor. Also, it appears that the monthly capacity factor for solar thermal, which presumably is concentrated thermal, the variation is considerably greater than for PV. Probably that is to be expected because CSP is more greatly affected by clouds than is PV. With both system, it appears that using the annual capacity factor alone would be insufficient to evaluate the practicality of either type of solar power system.
I don’t completely understand the chart. For one thing, it shows a much lower capacity factor for hydro than I would expect. Even so, it does show the need for more study before making firm statements about capacity factor and that it is a mistake to state only one figure for capacity factor because of wide seasonal variations, a mistake that I have been making. Obviously I am not the only one!
Frank
I will look at the chart.
When I use it I tend to use for Annual value per the manufacturers and developers. The follow-up studies on some of these single tracker utility scale projects tend to be 34 to 36 % and the pro forma for the plants are based on that .
The residential units have gone from 15 % to 21 %
but then clouds , maintenance( unscheduled) or other incidents can make negative impacts.
Lower capacity figures in winter are not deal breakers cause load is down etc. that is to be expected and the clouds in winter reduce power produced.
I used to have one of my Utility Operations Guidebook that gave real good explanations of the different types of capacity factors . there are more than one value and some relate to Annual and others to peak demand times wish I had not loaned that book to a colleague some years back.
Frank I will check out thank again & get back with you later on
@ Frank well we just got back to Lawrence and included you and presto you Are ONLINE with good information
Nice Post Frank – some of what you say I tend to agree with but you do paint with a broad brush in dismissing what RE can do. There are real market reasons that Wind and solar are the leading new sources of generation globally now. with Gas third. Nukes are irrelevant in numbers being built.
Reviewing what both of us said on the solar
The CPS format can be dispatch able power for those 18 hours so that is progress and deals with the peak load issue etc. . I dont worry about that 6 hours late at nite Gap. I explained why already. The load is not there and small rapid start gas turbines or gas engines for that matter can fill those GAPS.
distributed small units can provide some district heat and power so that is part of Smart Grid deployment.
The real limitation of the CPS format is location due to the need for very High solar Insolation so I admit that it can’t help much in Northern climates unless the technology makes a quantum leap. so its a niche solution.
so that makes your argument right to a degree. Albq does get some cloud cover but face it load is down when its shady , the summer is when it really matters if deep cloud cover hovers too long. Load would be down also but the level of need is higher in summer.
Location in US is around 200 miles East of El Paso Tx and then West all the way to So Cal. staying below So Colorado and Utah. So that is a inherent limitation.
Oh yes Florida has one plant sited with large CC gas plant built in pre gas bubble cheap prices era 2007. FP & L says its not competitive with low gas prices now but it will be back in the money in 10 years with higher gas prices.
So geographical location is a limiting factor. N Africa and Peru and Chile ( they dont have much load so a mis match exists. Some of the Middle East states are good for it too.
I agree with you on the future not being real long for burning large volumes of gas as the real emissions level is actually like only 38 % less than coal emissions. The EPA finally finished field studies of the aggregated leakage in the gas supply chain Upstream to the Well head . The losses are around 12 % and they developed a new rule for the gas industry to implement to mitigate the losses and leakage etc. Some of that will get done by the good players in the industry. Even ND is cracking down on the rampant flaring of gas which was 34 % of all the gas they found . Despicable waste and huge damage to environment.
But now with the Trumpet that rule may get trashed.
So the real net difference between coal and gas is around 38 % not the ballyhooed 50 % reduction level.
Frank there are long range studies out now that validate what you are saying about the GHG impact of burning much more gas as we convert away from coal. In the present term and near term we have reduced GHG emissions . Good, But by 2030 the aggregated level of emissions starts going over the level where we need to be. So Gas its not a long term pathway for generating.
Coal is losing its political power but gas has a even bigger level of political support so this will be a heavy lift to shift away from it. Depressed Oil & gas prices in Texas are resulting in a serious State severance tax shortfall in Texas. from my travels I think NM is also suffering the same reduced revenues .
Many Utilities Resource Planners are saying now that the big build out in GAS CC units should slow down around 2025.???
so yes there is a big GAP to fill as the existing fleet of large Nukes begins closing down in 2035 to 2040. There are some hopes to run em another 20 years but the last 5 years we have seen 12 or so PWR need to close early due to failure. ( Nov 2016 Power Engineering) Plus Diablo canyon is to be added to list and Pilgrim Plant too. Maybe Indian Point in NY.
So I share your concern and right now the only solutions seem to be the Molten Thorium and related reactors. So those field tests scheduled to begin need to get done and hopefully the results have the Merit needed.
But Frank realize that load growth in the US is now forecasted to be an Anemic .9 % thru 2040. It was .5 % from 2000 to 2015 so its been real light. And there has been growth in both homes built and commercial buildings.
End use efficiency , the export of heavy industry and better building design combine together to reduce demand. Plus conservation Values are more engrained into behavior than some of us really realize. economics and desire for fiscal efficiency etc driving change.
T
For the industrializing parts of World yes load may grow more so what do we do??? good question Silent has no definitive answer.
some niche answers only so I hear your point.
But I strongly caution you to not discount wind and solar making much greater contributions. Wind / storage with molten salts will really be a booster.
My question or challenge to you , if the PWR were so good why isn’t the utility sector rushing to build more now. Same thing can be said for the rest of the world.
France has stated they are going to reduce their capacity mix of nuclear from 70 % to more like 50 % . their large units are having Issues now.
More questions
Why are there only around 25 at most being built globally right now if they are so good.
Our Aussie Mates also should take note and speak their minds on why the numbers are so LOW.
We are going to need something to close the GAPs so the Technologists have the motivation to deliver a solution. what it is ???
I see a MIX depending on location and resources.
Frank your reply is not showing so I dont know if I covered everything you said. This is weird?
Good points and we both have deep questions.
Silent,
Sometimes I compose replies using my word processor because that makes it easier to keep what I am replying to visible. Then it is a simple matter to copy my reply into the box where it belongs. And, if the 2greenenergy system fails, I haven’t lost what I’ve written.
You wrote, “My question or challenge to you , if the PWR were so good why isn’t the utility sector rushing to build more now. Same thing can be said for the rest of the world.” Surely that is a reasonable question.
The cost of nuclear plants has escalated to a shocking extent. Much of the escalation is the result of intentional delays caused by anti-nuclear activists. Sometimes, when a nuclear plant is almost ready to run, these intentional delays occur. Much of the cost of nuclear plants is interest on the investment. The interest begins to accumulate as soon as construction begins and greatly increases as the plant is built. When the plant is almost completed, the annual interest is very high yet there is no income from the investment until the plant begins producing power. Thus a bureaucratic delay of a few years greatly increases costs. Because the delays are not predictable, investors tend to be cautious. That reduces the attractiveness of nuclear power. There are also other delays, including changing regulatory requirements. There is political pressure to close down some nuclear plants prematurely which would result in heavy losses. The possibility that new nuclear plants could be forced to close early also makes investors uneasy. There is also political pressure to prohibit building more nuclear plants and to close existing ones.
Actually, I don’t see the PWR as being “so good”. Rather, I see it as mediocre. It has problems which could be avoided by superior nuclear technologies. We rushed into building PWRs instead of doing more R & D on alternative nuclear technologies. It may even be that one of the reasons for the reluctance to building more PWRs is the anticipation that better nuclear technologies will become available. Perhaps I should list some of the problems with PWRs which could be avoided with superior nuclear technologies.
PWRs require enriched uranium. That requires throwing away most of the mined uranium because natural uranium is about 0.7% U235 with the rest being U238 and PWRs generally require from 3% to 5% U235. That is very wasteful.
PWRs are able to utilize only about 1% of the energy contained in the enriched fuel with the rest being discarded as waste. A better nuclear technology and fuel cycle could utilize from 90% to 99% of the energy in the fuel thereby greatly reducing waste.
PWRs require a pressure vessel capable of safely withstanding about 2500 PSI. Such pressure vessels are exceedingly expensive and currently they cannot even be manufactured here in the U.S.
PWRs require a huge containment vessel capable of withstanding the pressure pulse which would result from an explosion of the pressure vessel. That also is exceedingly expensive.
Like all nuclear reactors, PWRs for some time after shutdown generate heat at about 7% of the rate they were generating heat before shut down. That is because of the rapid decay of the short lived radio isotopes. To prevent a melt down, a cooling system must remove that heat until the rate at which it is produced reduces to a safe level. Failure of the cooling system will result in a melt down as occurred at Fukushima. Some other reactor types can be designed to dissipate that heat safely without active cooling systems.
I hope that we will not again make the mistake of rushing into implementing any energy technologies before we can be sure that it is a reasonable way to go. We should have learned from the PWR mistake, but I’m not confident that we have.
Silent,
Your reply to Lawrence was gratuitously offensive and degenerated into an incomprehensible rant. (Which is a shame as you often make valuable contributions).
The problem you seem to be having is over passionate enthusiasm. Technology isn’t about find a type and cheering for it in the same way you would a football team !
We are all just commentators and observers. I very much doubt whether anyone contributing to 2Greenenergy, is likely to be in the position of building a Nuclear Facility and be swayed by what what we write ! 🙂
However, having said that, some of us are in the business of developing small scale clean tech projects. From these projects we gain small insights into the dynamics of large projects and gain some understanding of the ramifications of clean technology on national and global economies.
We need to remember the main importance of energy generation mostly concerns the impact on economies. There’s a tendency to treat energy production as if it was a primarily environmental or ideological dynamic, devoid of economics.
Environmental factors also can impact the economy, but as US corn ethanol has proven, too much ideolog, can be not only economically harmful, but environmentally disastrous !
That’s why the real enemy of clean Tech isn’t giant corporations, or fossil fuel conspirators, but over enthusiastic politically motivated, advocates, cheering loudly but lacking objectivity.
Where wind and solar can prove beneficial, that’s great ! We should all be supportive of developing these technologies to their full potential.
However, we must learn from the lessons of Germany and Spain and remain objective. The greatest lesson comes from US corn-ethanol production.
There are no “bad guys” in the US corn ethanol story (well, except for a few shysters).
The Carter administration acted in good faith to develop a solution to two major crises occurring in the US economy during the 1970’s. The farm states were suffering from over-production of corn, which meant ruinous prices while OPEC had plunged and America dependent on imported oil into economic chaos by shortages and dramatically high prices.
These problems combined with the need for cleaner fuel to alleviate smog in US cities, made ethanol seem the perfect solution to kill many birds with the same stone.
It’s not the fault of Carter, no one in the 1970’s could have foreseen the downsides.
Trying to find someone to blame has become an ugly modern phenomenon. We seem to be even more prone to forming lynch mobs and shouting abuse than ever before.
One of the advantages of legal training used to be the ability to research and argue both sides of any issue objectively and without emotion or prejudice.
Craig must often find my insistence on objectivity, very frustrating ! Crusading rhetoric has it’s place, it can be a powerful means of motivating progress, but it’s dangerous and irresponsible when not supported by objective analysis.
Craig, and I suspect your self, are crusaders. Like all true believers, you are very adept at seeing the fault in others, but dismissive of real world problems that conflict with your ‘vision of how the world should be.
You also prefer to remain ignorant in the imperfections of your hero’s and institutions. I believe this is an inherent weakness in all leftist philosophy, the need to believe and adhere to rigid ideological tenets.
True conservatives (not reactionaries) are more flexible, adaptive and pragmatic. Not being bound to an unbending dogma, allows for more analysis and self-criticism. By removing the fear of failure, it’s easier to entourage experimentation, change and development.
By avoiding ‘revolution’ in favour of ‘evolution’ , it becomes easier to identify errors and make corrections without fear of inappropriate consequences.
You, Lawrence, myself, in fact everyone should be unafraid of objective analysis, both in technology, economics, politics and public policy.
Perhaps if Hilary Clinton had focused more on correcting the errors and problems left unaddressed by the Obama administration, spent more time listening to the overlooked and ignored, her credibility would have improved.
Silent, don’t lose the passion, just calm it down and temper it with a little more objectively. (and cut Lawrence a little slack!).
@ Marco that is fine for you to make that statement as you see it.
Look Lawrence deserves lots of Sarcasm and that is what happens after several of his real sarcastic below the subject comments . If one dishes it out then get prepared to have lots of Incoming.
The Laws of Cause and Consequence
the real turn off was a few weeks ago when I referred him to the researcher in Aussie land that does the global wind report he blew it off as bs info. Such arrogance deserves NO Quarter from me hence!!!
His disregard for facts and figures makes me question his real intent. So I offered him opportunity to put his big dense power system into action.
If it does not match up with his goals thats fine.
We all are doing what we can to make things better and if you read my last Post to Frank a gentleman for sure you see how I have capacity to entertain wide Vision on things. We both were sharing acknowledgement of need for better total solutions but I am coming to the conclusion that there is no one silver bullet and much of us grew up in a ERA where Society solved its challenges well engineers solved them most of time, with some big thing solution.
Perhaps , just a question we have reached a flat line of sorts in the energy sector with no big solution.
So we adapt to several smaller solutions and Integrate them together into a MIX for a New ERA ! perhaps
Not worth arguing over you take care where ever you may be.
Stop all this category of Crusaders and the like that glove no fit.
what you perceive as Crusading may just be a call for some Action and it takes real Push to make markets and make changes especially against entrenched subsidized carbon interests.
Last nite I was acting as a go between between several of what you would label as greenie extremists in search of solutions and the local large utility which is placing taxes on solar in effort to retard deployment.
Lil ol me is in the Middle trying to chart a Middle path in search of win win solutions that both can live with. herding cats – volunteer work I should have my head examined. 3 plus hours
sure you have been involved in similar and one does see some of the things that you talk about with people too fixated on 1 solution and its all or nothing. End result no acceptance happens and no progress is made and polarization sets in.
working hard to prevent that …in search of better outcomes …later for awhile I am checking out
@SR & Marcopolo
LOL.
SR I love your passion – keep it alive mate.
I have a thick skin like yourself also.
I dish a bit out at times and love getting it dished out in spades in response. I admit I do enjoy a bit of a stoush in these important issues around us at the moment (a spill over from the Navy football days).
But please remember, there are no sheep stations up for grabs in all this discourse, its all just plain old healthy, stimulating, bloody good fun banter really.
Lawrence Coomber
Good Morning Lawrence and thank you for your note.
Your navy experience resonates with me even though I am a desert rat of sorts myself. Anything to do with UK British royal Navy or Australia navy, New Zealand as well is music tome as you Chaps saved my late father back in the WW 2 days.
I am starring at the pictures of the New Zealand Auckland Hospital where my father recuperated from his battle wounds right now.
foremost though is the Great track record for the British royal Navy spanning decades some things need to be Honored.
Frank I am reviewing those capacity figures you shared I will get back soon.
Lawrence, Mate Marco and Frank I saw this morning that the town of Los Alamos NM where the National lab is , the birthplace of the nuclear age for US is in some discussions with NUSCALE SMR ‘s for future considerations.
The utility in Los Alamos while in NM also belongs to the Utah based consortium of electric cooperatives that trying to partner with NU SCALE SMR for the 50 megawatt pilot plant in Idaho at the Nat lab as I have presented in other Postings.
stay tuned see what my humble little Pre Model T periscope can detect over the next change of the Moons …
I must get back to herding of solar cats and lost sheep as well as some Architects who get fuzzy wuzzy thinking from over exposure to the Solar Rays coupled with the Winds gusts of the upcoming spring dust storm season. While a strong advocate for RE I have distinct awareness of the limitations and capabilities so it is imperative to get others to find the design balance point.
As Mate Marco has stated often it is difficult to get the consensus needed to prevent band aid approaches that fall way short of Real goals ! Standing Tall in Seas of confusion is thankless but so it goes!
later on thank you Lawrence Keep Sailing strong !!1
Frank I will get back with you soon .
@SR
You mentioned Los Alamos SR.
The reasons why are not important but as a youngish (early 30s with 19 years service in the RAN as a missile engineer under my belt) I developed a close friendship with famous physicist Ernest Titterton whilst serving at Navy Office in Canberra.
We had many private discussions over time and his insights On energy science and the future left a great impression on me.
Lawrence Coomber
@ Lawrence that is cool that you had direct interactions with a scientist from Los Alamos back in the day….
There are some great minds at the Lab – I had the benefit of providing some environmental services there in 1990’s and got to meet and learn some things and get tours.
Also saw the legacy of sloppiness and budget cutting that pressured Mgrs to cut corners. resulted in Blunders and Boondoggles of many extremes. Many good people have done some good things in spin off technologies from the work there and similar Nat labs. The marketplace is populated with them. They do get caught in the middle of the political swings and changing priorities in the US and it retards progress sometimes. Probably just a common occurrence everywhere when one stops to size up the moment.
The lab is part of a large village and they have signed onto the UAMP Utah Assoc. Municipal Power consortium that is pursuing the pilot test of the SMR – the article from my source had a really high price quoted for 50 meg mini nuke ….similar to what Marco Polo was describing.
Passion put aside I left it out and am researching the accuracy as I strive to POST facts and real figures and I was not comfortable with the high number stated.
Frank wrote a really good piece on PWR s Nuclear units and he points out many good points on how the cost got driven up to a degree.
Frank nice , I accept most of what you said about some of the effects of protesters but in the US there are no protesters anymore. that problem has receded to a large degree. There are none in Georgia or S Carolina or Tennessee where the only 5 large PWR s are being built now.
The only protests are at the State level utility commissions where the rate increases to pay for the large cost over runs are creating political pressures. Conflicting decisions ….
Progress Energy in SC almost went bankrupt over their share in the SC Nuke; so they got married to Duke power the Biggest utility in Americas so they could spread the excessive capital cost over runs across their sales base thus taking pressure off ratepayers in SC and No Florida.
As you said and I think you were very objective Sir that the PWR design with all its baggage and hidden costs etc was not the best choice made back in 1960’s or so.
The gas glut and lower wind costs are making middle aged nukes noncompetitive in deregulated markets. A growing issue.
In 1965 Oak Ridge ran a mini Thorium or Fluoride nuke ( memory s blank excuse me) for 2 or 3 years with no issues. One of the key researchers told how his Mgr the Chief Scientists was fired from the lab. ??? Fired for success?
The rumor or message spoken to Forbes magazine is that Carbon energy Interests used their political power to subvert good technology for strictly monetary profit issues. ( invisible hand of the so called free market at work) So that put the Mini s on the shelf here .
That is part of the Legacy of our fragmented energy policy. and it is noteworth that there were less than 1,000 lobbyists in wash Dc in those days. Now there has been a baby boom as there well over 12,000 last count. !!! LOL or COL !
As Marco pointed out well the complexity of the Ethanol mistake. Done for some of the right reasons but the Laws of Un intended consequences came due and now its a political pork cash flow program etc.
Frank the wasted uranium in the fuel burning which you explained results in larger volumes of radio active waste that needs disposal.
Then the casinos in Las Vegas blocked the opening of the Nevada disposal site thats a compromise of politics over science. Surely that dampens enthusiasm in various Board rooms.
The utilities and others in the circle have said that they dont think there is a consensus in America for a big volume program, the un controlled costs scare them and the Banks too. Based on what these in the circle folks have shared in various forums they dont see a big large nuke market developing.
If nuclear power is to have a future it must be in one of the smaller mini nuke designs for cost, safety, time, load following and flexibility going with a simple design to eliminate all the pitfalls of a Grand Big larger than life construction and plumbing , wiring project that the trades folks just dont have enough practice to get it right with ease and speed.
No amount of Bloviating will change these facts. Franks point out that we can’t even build the containment vessel in the US anymore Another coffin Nail to the Big Genie.
Frank I share your concern that some how the political forces ( moneyed interests ) will interject their Pull or Power into the decisions on what type of nuclear power we get going forward.
Hope this does not happen again. There is more to say on this but later.
Frank I am trying to get the real cost per KW for the NUSCALE Unit.
The capacity factor chart is good it reflects a average value for the entire year bu each month.
What would share more insights into this operating barometer for different technologies is How the Utilities utilize their mixed fleet of generators . I have some numbers for a large utility that shows each of their generators capacity values . Shocking inside information. large capital intensive units that only run 30 % of time when they were designed to be run 50 to 60 % range.
Merchant plants that run longer but sell their power across diverse areas and client base. but lately they are losing out as that market is slowing down and is threatened by DG, utility scale solar and in the future the utility battery. Many variables
This is caused by changing Load conditions and consumption patterns. Even this co’s 600 plus megawatt portion of the well performing Palo Verde Nuclear station. Their portion is only getting a 65 to 72 % Capacity Factor per their FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filings.
Meanwhile the overall capacity factor for this Plant as reported as 92 % and has been as high as 97 % over the years. So in this case the utility is spinning off power to others.
The point here is this: It is too simplistic to just quote a Capacity factor as how the load changes and other conditions impact this .
I have used the 34 % to 36 % for single tracking solar as that is what the large developers use and and publish in their pro formas.
I don’t think it is annual metric based on what the EIA is reporting.
But then the EIA has had a long bias against renewable energy and has had a very pro Carbon slant for decades due to national Security reasons among others. They have only begun in last few years to adjust the prices for solar and wind more in line with the real decreased costs that each has reached. So they are getting better but they have a treasure Trove of Good data over all.
SR has more work to do here Frank’s thanks for sharing and Marco’s allegations about well meaning but technically incorrect policies creating more mis steps are all well taken
later on
Silent,
Withdrawing R & D funds then restoring them has consequences that seem to be given insufficient consideration. When funds are withdrawn, highly competent personnel leave and go elsewhere. Then, when funds are restored, it takes some time for new personnel to become as competent as the personnel which left. Thus political vicissitudes can be very costly.
There are still anti-nuclear protesters. They have objected to direct ocean water cooling of at least one nuclear power plant in California. The cost of building cooling towers instead of using direct ocean water cooling may cause the plant to be shut down thereby resulting in burning more fossil fuel. My information on that probably is not current.
It seems strange that natural gas is wasted by flaring and leakage. One would think that the value of the gas would be sufficient to prevent that problem, but apparently not.
Regarding the disposal of radioactive waste, it may be that the opening of the Nevada site is not a bad thing, at least if site would have made retrieval of the waste impossible. Perhaps it should not be called waste since it could be valuable as fuel for advanced nuclear reactors.
It seems to me that there would be a place for both mini nuke designs and “Grand Big” reactors. Huge reactors provide excessively large increases in power for smaller power companies which serve smaller areas. On the other hand, large reactors may be more economical were their size can be justified.
I agree that it is simplistic to quote capacity factors, but still the difference between 35% and 90+% is too great to be ignored.
@SR
I agree with everything you say – but don’t mess with Vegas eh!
My wife and I renewed our vows last May with Elvis at the Little White Chapel and plan to spend our remaining anniversaries there in the future.
Keep Vegas pure please SR.
Lawrence Coomber
@ Frank and @ Lawrence
Appreciate and value your comments
Frank we’re are in parallel to a degree but there are many reasons that the cooling water discharge issues from large nukes have been a resistance point by Environmental Groups.
Large discharges into the ocean does damages to Marine Life and the studies and tests have resulted in restrictions imposed on Big Nukes.
At inland nukes excessive discharges of warm waters have caused ecological and aquatic imbalances in rivers. That is where the new EPA rules for no more single pass thru discharge rules for NUKES came from. They were the result of years of testing and scientific study.
Even France has killed lots of fish in its rivers thru discharges and during times of drought they and to dial back down some of their nukes due to lack of cooling water.
big Nukes equals Big trade offs – perhaps the market place no longer wants to make those tradeoffs ! ??
The Old Order needs to be Re examined! and when it is , new pathways are developing, the way it is.
That is reality and the majority of the Public supports protecting Marine Life as the American consciousness has been raised to a degree that ( it even can given our consumer addictions) we must try to start protecting our oceans and related Marine Life.
So that is why. There are some others , some of those are less important perhaps.
Environmental resistance is a cop out excuse Kind sir Frank. Yes internationally nuclear has lost vital public support and governments are making restrictive decisions. That is true. But these are in response to the Public.
However, it is cost, lack of strong demand growth, reductions in Base load and Economic risks to utilities and their shareholders. The banks who under write these massive projects are not comfortable with the Risks involved.
Craig tell that Investor this in comparison to solar and wind etc.
Las Vegas as far as I am concerned is out of line in blocking the nuclear waste disposal site. We spent Billions developing it, it is as safe as these things go per the scientists involved state and the waste is being stored at nuclear power plants in populated areas and presents a long term energy security, terrorism vulnerability. The current system is a weak band aid and not a real policy that serves the industry or the public properly .
Waste shipments could avoid being near or going thru Las Vegas:
Transportation risk is reduced due to the Fact that good native American Tribal leaders in NE Nevada offered access rights 10 years ago for the DOE to build a rail line from the North intersecting with I 80 near ELy Nev. This line would take the waste from the over the road carriers and ship by rail thru vast waste lands and limited populations – more snakes and rabbits than humans LOL live in the uninhabited lands. – lots of geo thermal resources but no local loads and limited transmission assets to ship the energy to market.
They would get the radio active waste or un used product as Frank states to the Nevada site thru the back door. Political problem of the Casinos Avoided! folks while retiring Sen H Reid gets the wrath of the Gomer party over the blocking of the waste site facility it is the Billionaires and Owners of the casino Industry who blocked it in Reality. There are No shortages of Inconvenient Truths in this ERA! hahAhA !
This protects all the Party goers, Fornicators , idle Dream chasers and the like; However lets Honor Lawrence Coomber for honoring his marriage Vows in Vegas. There still is some good going on there so there is Hope still. Sincere congratulations sent your way from where ever I may be running around these days. ( Panhandle of Texas and the cold wind and ice is bitter cold right now! He and others in Vegas will be spared any and all Inconvenience’s.
Let the games go on !
so that is how we address the waste issue.
If this issue was resolved then the Risk to Investors is reduced. Not completely but its a change in direction. Investment is risk reduced , fundamentals ladies and gentlemen. Fundamentals.
Over a year ago I posted that several Executives at a energy symposium in Texas presented the following:
Lack of Industry Rabid support for big nuke build out program or even small ones too . This subtle fact ( inside the corporate Board Room) is that at a major energy conference in Texas that brought together both Carbon and Renewal energy professionals. Some spoke to the Nuclear Genie issues.
Nuclear had a 2 hour discussion period and the executives s from some generating co’s , including 2 that have over 50,000 Megawatts under their name and operate a couple of Big Nukes. They said bluntly
1. The financial risk is too Great for them to build Big Genies.
2. They expressed deep disgust with the nuclear industry for not addressing cost over runs and construction delays etc. as the industry has had 50 years to do something. And they are still waiting !!!!!
( this contrasts greatly with wind and solar where cost has come down Significantly and is still falling – and capability has increased and is still increasing) . So RISK IS REDUCED WITH RE VERSUS BIG NUKE GENIE ‘s is the Take Home Point period.
This is a direct answer to Craig’s original blog Posting question.
3. They doubt the changing and reductions in both load growth and base load needs Warrants large large units. of any type.
Frank this is a under pinning of my over all perspective Sir. Utility Planners must take ALL facts and Trends into considerations before they embark on a course of action, lest they risk large stranded under-performing operating assets. Large Financial Risks Avoidance going on here folks.
4. This large generating co is expanding its solar and wind resources and closing its massive coal plants and using gas plants strategically where load balancing and GAP resources are needed.
BTW just last week plans were announced for the Largest solar PV Plant in the US and the World were announced for location in Nevada. The capacity will be between 1,000 to 1,500 Megawatts of new solar for utility sales to large Casinos etc. Nevada is Re-purposing the GREEN takings from visitors and Investing it into Going Green with power production. Love this Circular economy Love it gives SR some Hope!
A group of Casinos are paying the Nevada utility over $ 100 million to exit and drop off the Grid and generate their power with Solar and Geo thermal and Wind.
That is Industry & Market speak – SR too
Re SMR’s the Power Industry Executives position is that they are concerned that the small scale units will have high capital costs but low capacity factor figures thereby having higher market Kwhr or Meg Watthhr prices. Thus making them noncompetitive in the near term or mid term until gas prices rise high enough to make the SMR’s truly market attractive.
Power Engineering – the utility source of most industry accepted data points out and as I have also that many of the existing Big Nukes are no longer price competitive with other options gas , wind, solar and conservation. Bear in mind these middle aged nukes are mostly depreciated ( their capital costs long recovered) but their O & M costs are rising beyond long ago and now discredited best engineering estimates when they were built. The Charade of the nuclear Genie boosters blinded years ago , dazzled by density of power etc.
So that is the $$$ 64,000 or Billion dollar question that can’t be answered Objectively until pilot demonstration projects for SMR’s are completed and the industry has a Scale plan that makes sense so that they can get to $ 2,500 or $3,000 capital cost per KW of capacity is reached.
Most utility economic studies seem to think that is the Sweet spot to be In the Money. It is not wisdom to hang one’s Hat on cheap fuel – solar and wind have No fuel and they still have issues. Lets not be distracted by the Tip of the Iceberg folks!
Frank NUScale info seems to have a target of less than $ 5,000 KW right now. How far below this figure is unknown at this time. Let’s see where this goes.
it looks like the 4 large nukes being built in Georgia and So Carolina will come in around $ 20 billion which is a very HIGH HIGH cost per kw. That is the bottom line. And this is with DOE Loan Subsidy from the gracious and long view Obama Administration – of course the raging anti Obama sentiment trumps all facts in these and other related matters.
The dysfunction and cognitive dissonance of America in full play! LOL !!
Frank we are agreement on capacity factor issue, it is relevant to technology and LOAD needs and as I repeat myself perhaps – the new operating paradigm is no longer just 1 Big Unit to meet all this big base load etc. it is going to be a GRID of mixed technologies, Integrated to maximize each one’s capabilities and GAP filling to make up short falls.
All these so called new Economies that are growing Globally and need more power would be Wise Very Wise to build their systems accordingly and not fall into the negative economic trap of prior models. The world has changed .
A reasonable person Craig would conclude that the Risk for Solar is much lower than other options.
Its Sunday and nice to receive a positive message from Lawrence on renewing his marriage vows in Las Vegas . who know’s maybe he talked the Nevada Casinos into going Green!!1
Perhaps that is why his Running Mate Marco remains so silent just playing Marco its cold over here !
Off to Austin to Plead and Present before the Authorities on better energy Policy for West Tx and So NM perhaps its a Fools Errand but we must put our passions into real deployment to prove our worth.
have good days
@ Frank
You express that you think it s wrong that there is Excessive Flaring of natural Gas.
Yes the sad and environmentally damaging truth is the industry flares off far too much resource thus doing more damage to the environment by burning untreated raw gas ( with high levels of methane that lasts longer in atmosphere) .
In ND they were burning – flaring off 34 % of all the gas they found within the oil wells that they were pumping. The excuse was that it was Not Economical to build out the needed feeder gathering lines in the oil fields .
ND state Government after 5 years or more of criticism by Federal regulators and also various Environmental Activists groups finally decided to reach into their coffers and start spending some money to help the cash strapped energy co’s ( if you believe that LOL LOL
) pay to start extending gathering lines so they can move the captured gas into the upstream pipelines that take the gas to treatment plants for processing ( removal of sulfur, water other contaminants , NGL’s, etc. ) then it goes into the mid stream and pipeline systems.
lack of planning in the development of new fields is the root cause of the problem. If they field build out was done in a rational planned manner like a typical new city subdivision. This allows for orderly development and extensions of needed infrastructure.
This results in all needed utilities being in place.
1. In the oil and gas fields this does not happen so there are big gaps in gathering lines.
2. Then the oil co say or claim that it is Un economical for them to spend money to capture this gas as its price per bTU is lower than OIL.
3. They claim they can’t afford to spend money on this as only the oil is worth the investment in gathering lines.
4. They will build pipelines once the field is fully developed and producing which is what they used to do in conventional fields.
5. The dirty secret is that with shale resources the depletion rates are so High it makes the economics just about never good to go back and build lines as the resource flow goes down.
Not always the case but a factor. Since the oil is worth more they ignore all this and just gather most of the oil.
Burning off high levels of gas once its separated from the oil is a wasteful, environemntally destructive process that only Good Regulation and orderly development of resource fields can mitigate , redeuce and stop.
ND is finally helping the industry and they are now seeing 3rd party co that are selling mobile treatment systems that can separate the gas, treat it and capture CO2 and then release the treated resource into a gathering line. these are good technical solutions but the gathering lines must be in place for this to work.
Higher prices for Natural gas and the fear of higher lost profits may drive the industry to reform itself.
ND for one has begun some of this process. Colorado and some other regions are beginning to move in the same directions as proposed EPA rules were going to limit the emissions levels allowed from the resource fields. Colorado actually reached some win win Solutions for all players and the energy co’s can live with it , the minimal added costs and clean up their Acts and the Activists can live with them.
All it takes Frank is for people to Man Up and do the right thing and common sense approaches can resolve or at least greatly reduce the wasted resources. Regulations are not a bad thing in all cases as some Extreme voices like to say all these Regulations are bad blah blah blah, but now we live in the Trumpet Era so all bets off!
In Texas and ND and Colorado Billions & Billions of gas resources burned off and wasted ….speaks for itself of the Follies of Mankind!
Linear Economics also to blame if one has the mental capacity to get it.
so a few steps forward and now how many steps backwards ?
In NM where you are heated battles going over this issue right now.
But now we have the Trumpet , All bets are off ! who knows what will happen?
Silent,
From your post, it looks as though eventually flaring will become a thing of the past. Perhaps, before work even begins in developing a field, flaring should be made illegal. Then the collection pipes would be built for gas along with the collection pipes for oil, or whatever it takes to avoid the flaring.
Flaring is also a problem in Nigeria and probably other countries as well.
@ frank
Flaring will be reduced some what Frank not completely due to the economics that the energy co’s hide behind or operate on.
If the gathering lines are put into place and the vendors of the mobile fuel separators and treatment compressors deeply then yes a large volume of flaring will be reduced.
The energy industry has a poor track record in countries like Nigeria, Angola, Ecuador and Venezuela ( the poor environmental track record in Venezuela led to the extreme Hugo Chavez regime and its disaster unintended consequences ) profits over people and the environment.
look at what Exxon did in Indonesia etc. It is in federal court now.
The regulations need to be more comprehensive and under the Trumpet I dont see a continued push for efficiency in the energy fields.I see attempts to get by doing the minimum as I said 1 or 2 steps forward and it is anyone s guess how many backward.
If you want reduced Flaring in NM , write letters to your simple minded moronic Gomer lady governor who is just a Polly Parrot of empty slogans. NM has had 10 plus years of heavy drilling and now relaxed regulations and more pumping etc etc., but NM is STILL very Broke! State Budget issues so much for simplistic slogans!! COL COL crying out loud.
RE Nuclear perhaps you missed it but I discussed a rail line from Ely Nev to the proposed waste site in Nevada. This line may have over come most of the political resistance to the waste storage site and avoided Las Vegas issues. etc.
This would have helped your cause of Big Nukes or any Nukes for that matter.
The Native Americans offered to be Team players for the greater good.